Hypothetical Question, could Ruth hit modern pitching

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Sure but that's what I'm asking. What couldn't he do? And why not? This is a guy who rolled out of bed as Babe Ruth. If the hypothetical is placing him in today's game where he'd probably be playing at an elite prep school during his adolescence and surrounded by elite coaching with modern analytics, why wouldn't you think he'd be even better? If that was even possible.

The same reason I don't think you could take anyone from the 1920s in any sport ss they were and expect them to be anywhere near the same level as today's athletes: humans are stronger, faster, and quicker by a substantial factor. How would Jim Thorpe, exactly as he was, do in a decathlon today? Same concept.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The same reason I don't think you could take anyone from the 1920s in any sport ss they were and expect them to be anywhere near the same level: humans are stronger, faster, and quicker by a substantial factor.

But we're talking about baseball. There are limitations of the human body that mean the basics of baseball can only change so much. For Babe Ruth not to be Babe Ruth in any era, he'd have to have some kind of weakness in his game. I don't see any. And baseball isn't like football or basketball. You can take a player from the 20s and show him baseball in 2023 and he'd recognize it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

But we're talking about baseball. There are limitations of the human body that mean the basics of baseball can only change so much. For Babe Ruth not to be Babe Ruth in any era, he'd have to have some kind of weakness in his game. I don't see any. And baseball isn't like football or basketball. You can take a player from the 20s and show him baseball in 2023 and he'd recognize it.

And you could take Jesse Owens and he would recognize a track and long jump pit. And therefore what?

[packs]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And you could take Jesse Owens and he would recognize a track and long jump pit. And therefore what?

My point was that all sports aren't the same. Baseball as a sport has changed very little in the past 100 years. It's managed differently in game, but the game is the same and the same skills that made you an elite player like Ruth translate the same way today.

It's like saying Willie Mosconi wouldn't be as good at billiards now. Why not?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

My point was that all sports aren't the same. Baseball as a sport has changed very little in the past 100 years. It's managed differently in game, but the game is the same and the same skills that made you an elite player like Ruth translate the same way today.

It's like saying Willie Mosconi wouldn't be as good at billiards now. Why not?

Billiards is not an athletic pursuit. Baseball obviously is. Football and basketball basics are the same as they were too, it's a question of do you see the similarities more than the differences or vice versa?

[packs]

I don't agree with that. If you took Red Grange and sent him to an NFL game in 2023 he'd have no idea what was going on.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't agree with that. If you took Red Grange and sent him to an NFL game in 2023 he'd have no idea what was going on.

It would take him 5 minutes to adapt, and then he would realize he was not nearly up to the challenge physically because of the evolution in athleticism.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by jsfriedm

From Joe Posnanski's Baseball 100 on The Athletic https://theathletic.com/1708673/2020...lter-johnson/:

"How fast did Johnson actually throw? Let’s go down that rabbit hole for a minute, even though we can’t know for sure. Johnson always said that his ability to throw hard was just natural. “From the time I held a ball, it settled in the palm of my right hand as though it belonged there,” he said.

Thank you for posting this. It was wonderful. There have been some very great posts this morning.

I want to add anecdote to the conversation. Many of the stars today excel in some very random way that most people can't comprehend. Like the Pujols story - his pitch tracking ability set him apart. I would say most star hitters share that ability: Miguel Cabrera, Barry Bonds, Griffey Jr, Ichiro, Clemente, Mays, Aaron, Williams, Ruth, Cobb. We want to say that Ruth's physical build might harm him, but that's something that can be controlled through regimen. Pitch tracking is something that is god given. You either have it or you don't.

Another anecdote is from going to autograph signings. I've always been fascinated by how large HOF'ers hands are. I'm 6 feet tall, but I have baby hands. My ring size is #7. I had mad hops in basketball, I could jump above the rim. But my little hands couldn't palm a basketball. My little hands couldn't move a baseball to my fingertips -- so essentially I was always throwing a changeup. When I met Gaylord Perry, Don Larsen, Bob Gibson.....my God! their hands and fingers were huge! If you've listened to how to throw, it's all about the placement of the baseball on different parts of your fingers. Closer to the palm is the changeup, further out is the fastball, out on the tips gets the curveball and slider, and don't forget the knuckleball. We can talk about how fast a pitcher throws and training and science....but hand size and finger length is something that is God given.

Pitchers from the pre-war era who could throw "junk" would find success in any era. They are competitive, and they adapt. It's a cat and mouse game and these players took immense pride in winning the game. Satchell Paige, WaJo, Smoltz, Clemens....the list goes on. They would find a way to compete across generations.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by packs

My point was that all sports aren't the same. Baseball as a sport has changed very little in the past 100 years. It's managed differently in game, but the game is the same and the same skills that made you an elite player like Ruth translate the same way today.

It's like saying Willie Mosconi wouldn't be as good at billiards now. Why not?

I think a player like Ruth would still be decent in MLB, but he would not dominate like he did in his era. First, as everyone has said, there is talent to be drawn from all over the world rather than just in the US, so the overall talent of every player is at a higher level. Then there have been a lot of new pitches that have been "invented" since Ruth's era such as the cutter, different variations of the fastballs, etc., which can be thrown at different arm angles. Then there is the analytics and scouting where pitchers can pinpoint which pitches that you are bad at handling or the location. If you are not a switch hitter, the opposing team can also bring in a specialist such as lefty on lefty just to get you out. (Of course, you can say that analytics/scouting can help the hitter also, but I think they still help the pitcher more.) Then of course, there the fresh closers, which really did not exist in Ruth's era to nail down the final innings. There are even things like pitchers increasing how much spin or rotation/s they put on the baseball to increase the movement. I think all of these different things will lower a batter's batting average in general, even someone like Ruth who was very gifted with hand/eye coordination, etc.

[packs]

But what are you pointing to when you suggest he wouldn't dominant in any era? You can look at very detailed breakdowns for Ruth on Baseball Reference. You can see who he performed at home, on the road, against leftys, rightys, even relief pitching. You can even go by first at bat against, 2nd, 3rd, inning by inning, batting order placement, anything you want. In every context you will see stats that represent the most elite player on the field.

He loses nothing by playing in the modern game. There are only things for him to gain today. So why wouldn't he be even better than he was?

[parkerj33]

One other factor I haven't heard mentioned yet: the insane travel conditions players from even as late as the 1960s had to endure. Mostly coach flights were difficult and longer. going back further, Train rides were less than ideal. Granted, they didn't travel west of Mississippi in Ruth's day, but the travel was still a challenge compared to today. Not to mention the equipment improvements, as well as the nutrition and training regimens available today. Even since the 80s. Remember the story where Jordan wore some of his vintage air jordans just 10 years later and then couldn't walk for a few days after due to the pain caused by the old sneakers?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

But what are you pointing to when you suggest he wouldn't dominant in any era? You can look at very detailed breakdowns for Ruth on Baseball Reference. You can see who he performed at home, on the road, against leftys, rightys, even relief pitching. You can even go by first at bat against, 2nd, 3rd, inning by inning, batting order placement, anything you want. In every context you will see stats that represent the most elite player on the field.

He loses nothing by playing in the modern game. There are only things for him to gain today. So why wouldn't he be even better than he was?

I think either you buy that today's pitchers are bigger, stronger, faster, and more sophisticated than in Ruth's day, or you don't. That's the key to our differences here. No difference on the proposition that relative to his time, Ruth is in a class by himself.